People v. Gray
- Decided
- May 11, 1995
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- New York
Cited 3,217 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- explaining that “even where a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence was made, the preservation requirement compels that the argument be ‘specifically directed’ at the alleged error” — Petronio v. Walsh (2010)
- indicating that an issue is preserved for appellate review when a specific objection is made at trial — Gardner v. Fisher (2008)
- finding a legal insufficiency claim could not be reviewed in absence of its preservation at trial — Bianchini v. Capra (2024)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION OF THE COURT Smith, J.
We hold that where a defendant seeks to argue on appeal, in accordance with People v Ryan (82 NY2d 497), that the People have failed to establish the defendant’s knowledge of the weight of drugs, preservation of that contention is required by an appropriate objection. [1]
In each of these cases the defendant argues that no preservation by specifically raising the issue of proof of the defen [*19] dant’s knowledge of weight is necessary. Some contend that, at most, a general motion to dismiss is all that is necessary in order to claim that the evidence of knowledge of weight is insufficient for a conviction. They rely on both statutory provisions (CPL 470.05, 470.15 [4] [a], [b]) and on the Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. The People counter that preservation is necessary, advancing both historical and practical reasons.
Cite this
People v. Gray, 652 N.E.2d 919 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.